A quick Vocabulary Thing. At several points below on this page I use the phrase “Carrying a firearm under this bill” or something very similar. That is to be interpreted as meaning they have a valid permit from any state or they are from a state where no permit is required to carry concealed.

Question: What are the nuts and bolts of this bill?

Answer: This bill is intended to ensure that every state will honor any concealed carry permit or right from any other state.

Question: Why is this bill needed or what does it change?

Answer: Currently states may choose if they are going to honor or recognize the validity of concealed carry permits from any other state. This creates a confusing patchwork model that often confuses gun owners and worse, sets them up to become criminals when they fail to research, understand, and follow the various different gun laws from state to state. This new bill if it becomes law would create some base standard without fully removing the states rights to regulate gun laws.

Question: What would this bill force states to do?

Answer: It will require that a state recognize the right to carry a firearm concealed by any person who possesses any concealed carry permit from any state OR by any person who resides in a state where one can carry a concealed firearm legally without a permit.

Question: What clause if any does the bill have referring to what gun, ammunition, or magazines that could be carried. Right now many states prohibit magazines with certain ammunition capacity or prohibit certain kinds of ammunition. How would that change?

Answer: The bill allows that anyone who carries a concealed firearm under this new bill can carry A handgun with ANY magazine with ANY ammunition. The way I interpret the bill (and the language is very specific and clear) this would mean that magazine capacity limitations and ammunition limitations would no longer be valid or apply to anyone carrying under this bill anytime or anywhere. (Click here if you want to learn more about current magazine capacity laws including a current map)

Question: Would this bill also include non-resident permits? For example if I live in a place where it is difficult or impossible to obtain my local state's permit, and I obtain a permit from a different state from where I reside, would this bill apply to me?

Answer: I mean that in order for this bill to apply to you, you must not be otherwise prohibited from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm per federal law.

Question: What if I live in a state that has Constitutional Carry? Meaning if my state of residence doesn't require me to obtain a permit in order to carry concealed then would I still have to obtain one in order to carry nationally under this bill?

Answer: No. The bill, when clarifying the qualifiers allows that the person qualifies if the are “…entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides…” This is especially important for residents of Vermont who have the legal right to carry concealed but have no way to apply for or receive any sort of state concealed carry permit as the state of Vermont has no permitting process or system. That said it would also apply to residents of states like Idaho and Arizona which allow their citizens to carry concealed without a permit but have still maintained a permit option for residents who want to have reciprocity elsewhere. With the passage of this bill those state may choose to cease their permit programs all together similar to what Vermont has done. (Click here for more information about Constitutional Carry and a List of States that currently allow is)

Question: What discretion or regulation would the state still have power to enforce?

Answer: The state would still have the power to determine what people with concealed carry permits could do or where they could go within that state. In the same way that every state is required to honor drivers licenses from every other state but each state can still have it's own specific traffic laws. Meaning, if any given state wants to require you to carry with no round in the chamber they could. If they want to make it illegal, even with a valid permit, to carry on public streets or in public parks, or darn near anywhere else… they could. They have to extend to any US permit holder the same rights as they do to their local permit holders and they have to allow any magazine with any ammo. That is what they have to do. Beyond that they can choose to make laws that determine what rights a permit gives someone in their state. This is why it will still be very important to research other state laws and be familiar with these restrictions. (Click here for the best research tool)

Question: What does this bill do about school zones and the Gun Free School Zone Act?

Answer: Current Section 922(q) prohibits anyone from being in possession of a firearm within a school zone unless otherwise permitted by the state (and a few other less noteworthy exceptions). HR38 allows that anyone carrying under this bill shall not be subject to the restrictions of 922(q). This means that in states where the law, even for those with a concealed carry permit, does not allow firearms within a school zone, would no longer be enforceable for anyone carrying under HR38. TO BE CLEAR, that does NOT mean that anyone carrying under this bill could have a gun IN a school anywhere in the country. It means that previously if the law didn't specifically allow those with permits to be within 1000 feet of a school with a firearm; if carrying under this bill that prohibition is no longer applicable. Other prohibitions that prevent guns from being in schools would still stand and apply.

Question: But could a state opt-out?

Answer: Essentially no. The bill does say it applies to any state that either has a statue under which residents may apply for a permit or licence to carry a firearm (49 states currently) or any state which does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State (the other 1 state plus some of the 49 previously mentioned as well). Now in theory you may say that a state could then choose to do away with it's concealed carry permit program and not allow concealed carry at all. Then they wouldn't have to honor any permits from anywhere right? Well in theory that is right BUT the Supreme court has already ruled that the state has to allow citizens some legal method to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense. This is why currently every state has a permit program of some form except Vermont which doesn't require any permit or license to carry concealed. So it would be impossible or at least against the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court for any state to try to opt-out.

Question: What does this change if anything about carrying on Federal Property like National Parks?

Answer: Currently the law allows that the prohibition or allowance of firearms in a National Park, Monument, or Memorial is regulated by the state in which that park, monument, or memorial is located. In HR38 that changes to allow that anyone carrying under the bill can carry a concealed handgun in any of the following areas that are open to the public: A unit of the National Park System, a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System, public land under the jurisdiction of the BLM, land administered and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers, Land administered and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation, Land administered and managed by the Forest Service.

Question: What about the Fix Nics part of this bill I've heard about?

Answer: Previously there was a separate bill (HB 4477) that has now been combined into HB 38. This Title II section of the bill referred to as FIX NICS is intended to better ensure that those who are already disqualified from buying firearms would be more likely to be listed in the NICS database and thus more likely to fail a background check when run. The bill also pushes to better prosecute those who are disqualified when they try to buy a gun and it commissions a study to be conducted on crime committed with Bump Stocks

Question: But does the Fix Nics Bill change who can buy guns? I've heard gun grabbers are supporting that part of the bill.

Answer: The comparable bill that is in the Senate is horrible and should not be supported. I understand that it does expand the types of people that would not pass background checks and all around its just a bad thing. That said the Title II section of HB 38 that was passed in the house has no such clause or concern. It simply has language to create an incentive and punish government agencies based on their compliance to existing reporting requirements of the Brady Bill. It also commissions a study to be conducted on crime committed with Bump Stocks.

Do you have additional questions or do you think I got something wrong? Let me know in the comments below.

About Jacob Paulsen

Jacob S. Paulsen is the President of ConcealedCarry.com. ConcealedCarry.com provides in-person and online firearm training for American gun owners. The Company is currently teaching in-person classes in 25+ states with a team of more than 55 instructors. Jacob is a NRA certified instructor & Range Safety Officer, USCCA certified instructor and training counselor, Utah BCI instructor, Affiliate instructor for Next Level Training, Graduate and certified instructor for The Law of Self Defense, and a Glock and Sig Sauer Certified Armorer. He resides in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado with his wife and children.

I am hearing rumblings about the language specific to the changes in the NICS system. That was a tag-along to the reciprocity bill. Can you expand upon that part , and possibly post the language that describes these changes so we can decide for ourselves?

In summary I’m less concerned about the Fix Nics act than I was previously. In its current form it doesn’t greatly (or really at all) expand the definition of WHO shouldn’t be able to buy a firearm. It instead works to force government agencies to be compliant with reporting data as currently defined by law to the NICS system. It also commissions some research to be done about the use of Bump Stocks in crime. All around not to horrible.

I live in Communist-fornia or California and in 2014 came under attack after leaving a drive through ATM at Wells Fargo on Peck Road in El Monte California. I was almost arrested by one EL MONTE Police Officer for Not surrendering my wallet and money upon demand to an attacker.

According to said Officer, “This was ALL my fault for not surrendering my wallet and money upon demand. Therefore I turned turned this into a mutual fight and even worse!” The Officer went on to say that, “I assaulted and battered this poor person with pepper spray!”

He failed to mention this guy stalked me ran me off of the road and repeatedly tried to stab me with a huge screwdriver. Later that night to my surprise the same man with his family/friends showed up at my home! I still do not know who this man is or any of these people. I had on going issues for 101/2 Months!

The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department has 90 Calendar days by law to issue a CCW or give a valid reason for saying: “No.” Nearly four years later I received a standard denial. Yes, I am in favor of HR-38.

The name used for the permit shouldn’t matter. The bill is written to include anyone who has been issued a permit or license to carry a concealed handgun. I understand that the Connecticut permit does that.

The NICS background check system could still arbitrarily [by mistake or by “design”] reject a gun sale without a reason and the aggrieved would have to file a lengthy and possibly an expensive appeal.
And the aggrieved would get no answer as to why they were rejected…

That isn’t changing. The Fix Nics Title 2 part of the bill does have measures to enforce compliance by government agencies but doesn’t change what does or doesn’t qualify someone to buy a firearm. That said the system has always been problematic with a 95+% false positive rate.

Honestly I haven’t thought about it much. In short I guess if those territories have concealed weapons permits or laws currently in place then they would fall under this bill. If not I suppose they wouldn’t be included. That might be a good one to ask an attorney…

I would like to thank you for taking the tie to shed some lite on this sensitive subject. What you have shared at least opens a dialog in which there is some sense to what is actually happening to and for concealed carry permit holders. Thanks again..

But what are we as gun owners giving up? The gun control people are wanting this to pass so they can regulate who can buy guns. That is why Feinstein and other gun control people tacked this on to this bill. Hope it does not pass.

More, we are calling upon our membership to contact their Senators and demand they oppose any gun bill that contains language being pushed by Senators’ Feinstein, Murphy, Schumer and others to ‘Fix-NICS,’ which is nothing more than a massive federal gun registry in the making.

Richard HB 38 would have no affect on this current law or practice… but to answer your question: Federal law very clearly makes it illegal to have a firearm in a post office or any other federal building. That said there has always been some question about the legality of having a firearm in your car on federal property… like the parking lot of a post office. A few years ago a man in Colorado was arrested, charged, and convicted for having a firearm in his car in a post office parking lot. He appealed that decision up the ladder and earlier in 2017 a Federal district court upheld the conviction. This means, at least in that Federal district, that it is for sure illegal to have a firearm in your car or otherwise in a parking lot of a federal building. Only time will tell how this may be ruled in other Districts.

DC would be the same as any other state since it is a “state” as to the legal definition and it has a concealed carry permit program in place. I’m not familiar with existing laws in the other territories but I would assume (which means don’t take my word for it) that if those territories have laws that allow residents to carry concealed firearms with or without a permit then they would fall under this bill as well.

Feinstein should consider retiring while she’s ahead she aint no spring chicken and if she’s so concern about people’s 2 amendment she should worry about stopping the war between jerasulam n Palestine!!! Not infringment on the 2nd amendment!!!

Your comment to the fellow from OK who can conceal carry there that he can legally carry in all 50 states is not clear to me. I live in NJ and have a AZ CCW. Would I now be allowed to conceal carry in NJ?

Whatever you do contact your personal state senators and urge them to vote Yes for this bill. This bill will be huge and when it hits the president’s desk he will sign it. We the American people need this bill to go through sewerage your state senators to vote Yes.

There is an appeal process and often people do need to hire Attorneys to get that resolved. I’m not intimately familiar with it so I’ll refrain from trying to give any specific details but the reason we know the rate of false positives is so high is because those people do go to the effort of appealing the decision.

How would this effect Erie County N.Y. where we have several types of concealed carry restrictions! We have concealed carry,concealed carry for work only,and,hunting and target concealed carry!??Toughest laws in N.Y. outside NYC!!

Timothy, that is actually a super valid question and I don’t think there is a clear answer. There are a lot of counties in NY that have similar various levels of licensing or permitting. I suspect there would be a bit of a court battle to be fought to determine which “permission level” would be extended to those with out of state permits traveling to NY.

“The state would still have the power to determine what people with concealed carry permits could do or where they could go within that state.”

Does this mean that non gun friendly states such as CA and NY can tighten the carry restrictions to make it difficult to carry while one is living a normal life doing day to day activities?

I have heard that if it passes CA would restrict carrying in any public place that has more then X amount of people or not being able to carry within X amount of feet from any retail establishment. Very similar to laws in regards to smoking.

Ed, yes your understanding is correct. States have to allow all with permits to do whatever the law allows their local permit holders to do… but they can change those laws to restrict what permit holders can do as far as they are able to do so. The patchwork of reciprocity would disappear but the patchwork of varying state laws would not.

Thanks for bringing this up. When I read this updated I fear this will be any “left” state or senator will move towards this if this bill is passed. I think it’s a great step but also fear that my state may impose a further restriction on my CCW permit.

Let’s keep up the positive support on this and more importantly, keep educating ourselves on this!

As for the questions about NY and it’s many different restrictions. NY really only has one permit. The restrictions are administrative. If you have a CCP in NY it is technically valid anywhere. However different counties will put restrictions on your permit. If you have a “full carry” permit from Albany and are caught carrying in Westchester after all the hoopla you will definitely lose your permit but you have NOT broken a law. Check it out.

I receive EMAILS from a DUdley Brown with the NAGR IN Colorado. How honest is he when he talks about this new gun Bill? Sounds like all he is spreading half truths and fear mongering. Cam you reply thanks

Thanks I stop his emails also. All he does is rant and rave how the government is going to take away guns from people on social security and veterans. And all the time asking for money. You gave a more concise report about the bill then he ever does. Thanks
.

The Democrats keep stating this law if passed is going to put guns in the hands of criminals, this isn’t for the illegal people. It’s for law abiding citizens. Are those in charge really that incompetent. And these are the people who lead our country.

in tennessee it states handgun carry permit. it does not state it has to be concealed or open carried, its up to the person with the permit. in texas theirs are concealed carry permits, which means that the permit holder has to have the weapon concealed. if this bill passes, does the permit holder say from texas have to conceal carry in other states, of from tennessee which it doesnt matter if concealed, does it force them to carry according to their home state of permit. or does it make the person from tennessee conceal his weapon if they were in texas?

George, you are wrong about Texas. Their License to Carry as of 2016 applies to both open and concealed carry… but that isn’t relevant to your question. What the bill says is that every state has to allow anyone with a permit from any state (or anyone who can carry concealed in their resident state) to carry concealed in that state… per the laws that govern concealed carry in that state for permit holders in that state. So put differently… Texas has to allow someone with a TN permit (or any other permit) to carry concealed in TX the same way someone with a TX permit could carry concealed. What the permit or license is called doesn’t matter. The bill doesn’t put any emphasis on the name of the license… only that the individual has been issued something that gives them the right to carry concealed.

i guess i need to clarify my question….in texas it used to be a concealed handgun permit, it may not be now but used to be. my question is this….if you are from a state that does not require a weapon to be concealed and you travel to a state that only has concealed, would the tn resident be required to conceal their weapon or could they open carry as they would in their home state?

The bill has no bearing on open carry at all. It only forces states to recognize permits (or legal ability to carry in the case you are a resident of a state where permits are not required) the same way they recognize their own state permit. So, you could only open carry in states where that is permitted per that state’s law. If you are from a state that has permitless carry or constitutional carry or otherwise allows citizens to carry concealed without a permit then you can carry concealed in all 50 states per the laws of any of those states when you are in those states. So for example if I am a resident of Vermont where concealed carry is legal and no permit is required and I travel to California (or any other state), I can do anything in California that a person with a California concealed carry permit could do. If I traveled to Texas where the law allows that a person with that permit/license can open carry then yes I could also open carry in TX.

I am 100% in support of HB38; however, as a Certified NRA, USCCA and TX License To Carry instructor, what I would really like to see along with HB38 is that ALL STATES be required to have some type of program to educate citizens who want to carry concealed to become responsible handgun owners. It is my opinion that States that only require a background check to receive their Concealed Carry permits are doing more harm than good. By putting non-responsible people on the streets with no training you are now creating situations for good people to do bad things regardless of their intent or circumstances should they use their handgun and inflect serious bodily injury or death of another person.

I strongly advise against assuming that a non-resident permit will cover you anywhere except in the issuing state. This will be a grey area until a court with jurisdiction over the ground you’re standing on issues a definitive ruling. I live in NJ, and I’m pretty damn sure NJ will not accept a FL or UT non-resident permit to enable my carry in the Garden State. HR38 is intended to deal with reciprocal recognition of permits issued by the several states TO THEIR OWN RESIDENTS.

DC, it isn’t an assumption. The bill is explicit in that regard and the sponsor and authors of the bill have been very clear on that point. I’m not saying it couldn’t be challenged or ignored… but I am emphatically saying that in the bills current format it does apply to anyone with a permit from any state regardless of residency. If the bill becomes law in its current format then NJ would have to honor a permit from Florida held by a resident of NJ. That is super clear in the bill… not a grey area.

I’m not familiar with laws that govern when and how you can buy a gun in NY. I understand there are a variety of different licenses for different gun related activities in various NY counties. It isn’t perfectly clear which of those licenses, or if it would be multiple of them, would be considered the governing standard which would be applied to those who have a permit from a different state. What is clear is that in some degree NY would have to recognize Virginia permits regardless of the residency of the permit holder and NY would have to grant those permit holders some degree of concealed carry ability.

In the state of Oklahoma any one with a concealed carry license may also carry openly. I have checked with the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI) and there is no restriction on the number of weapons a person can carry on their person or in their car. Would any state laws have an effect on this under the new bill?

I’m not sure I understand your question fully. In short Oklahoma laws only apply in Oklahoma. This new bill if passed would require the other 49 states to recognize the Oklahoma concealed carry permit but when in any of those 49 states you would need to follow the state laws of the state where you are traveling.

In California, your license has to have the make, model, and serial number of the gun you are carrying. how will an out of state license that does not have this information be upheld in California that requires it for their Concealed weapons permit ? Sense out of state licenses have to obey The states there in laws. And my Utah and Nevada licenses do not require me to list my pew Pew’s information.

As I understand the current wording of HR38, CA will no longer be able to enforce that law because they will be required to recognize ALL other states permits and they do not have the authority to make rules for others states permit language content requirements. Much to the same my home state of NJ has current laws about mag capacity and ammo types that will be null and void for anyone who carries under this new federal law as currently written.

anytime the fed government is involved with anything in ten years it will be screwed up and now we could be forced into no carry, the feds should not be allowed to have a say in this, leave it up to the states and work together among our self

I’d be concerned that some States will rapidly modify laws to add restrictions that would make it more difficult to carry. What would prevent a State from placing ridiculous restrictions out there to purposefully inhibit this law? I can’t imagine that States like NY or California would ever allow visitors to come into those States with handguns. What are the risks here of ending up with a worse situation for some of us?

In The Democratic People’s Republic of California, we are not allowed a magazine over 10 rounds. With HR 38 and my UTAH non-resident permit will I be allowed to carry a magazine with a capacity that goes over 10 rounds? I find it hard to believe that I can conceal a higher cap magazine and not get into serious trouble if an issue occurred.

I’m not saying there would be a fight with the states like California or that they may attempt to ignore Federal law… but yes if this bill became law in its current form then it 100% would allow you to carry ANY size of magazine concealed per California law with your Utah permit.

It seems a lot of the questions on here are pertaining to – “If I live in this sate and have a permit, and travel to this other state, do I follow my permit laws or what?”
I think you have done an excellent job at outlining the bill and explaining what we can and can not do.
However – let me add to help clarify, which may make it a bit simpler for some to understand –
First – you must have a Drivers License (permit to carry) to drive to (carry in) another state.
Second – when you are driving through/in that state, no matter which state it is – you must follow the driving laws/speed limits/road signs posted by that state (you must follow that states laws pertaining to carrying a handgun).
Basically – the bill would allow you to carry in ANY state should you ALREADY have the legal ability to carry in any other state – BUT, you must be aware of what the laws are for the state that you are traveling to as to what you may or may not be able to do.
You will be able to carry in ALL states, but each state may put their own limitations on where/how/when/how much you carry.

Hope this helps. Support and Best Wishes from The Great State of Texas!!

Then I would say the Republican is wrong… about Magazine size limitations specifically. The bill specifically says ANY magazine with ANY ammunition. Otherwise I agree with the Republican in that states could still control other gun laws.

So it did passed recently..incurrently have a AZ CCW..but live in CA… Am I now able to carry Concealed and if so how many rounds can I have in my mag… are there any limitations … per CA.. I don’t want to get in trouble.with law enforcement..pleaze advise

We should no longer be supporting this bill, I was a strong supporter of HR-38 and also have a facebook group to follow its progress (search #supporthr38) if anyone is interested, but instead we should demand that our government issue concealed carry license issued by the ATF, similar to a FFL license to deal in firearms, it would have to be recognized by the state. They should establish a licensing protocol of some sort within the ATF to process permit applications and turn them around in a timely manner. To many states fail to honor other states concealed carry permits and do not enter in reciprocal agreements. My home state of NJ only issues permits if there is a “justifiable need” which basically means nobody is issued a permit unless you are law enforcement, lawyer, judge, politician or politically connected. This needs to change. NJ and other states need to be FORCED to follow the constitution, currently there have been several cases challenging NJ laws, but the Supreme Court refuses to address these cases. HR-38 passed in the House of Representatives but doesn’t have the votes on the Senate floor to pass and get to the President’s desk for a signature. We need to take this into a whole new direction and demand that our lawmakers establish a licensing protocol for ALL Americans, regardless of what state they live in. Just my 2 cents.